TNAG-0198-FCO40-234-Prevention-of-bribery-bill-1969 — Page 114

PREVENTION OF BRIBERY BILL

27. Clause 20 will enable evidence of unexplained resources to be given in support of a charge under Part II. Such evidence may be treated as tending to substantiate the truth of testimony that the accused accepted or solicited a bribe and as showing that the bribe was accepted or solicited as an inducement or reward.

28. Clause 21 modifies the law as to accomplices which at present obliges a court to have specific regard to the danger of convicting a person on the uncorroborated evidence of an ac- complice. If a person is accused of accepting a bribe, the person who gave him the bribe would be regarded as an accomplice. Clause 21 modifies the rule by providing that the person who gave the bribe shall not be regarded as an accomplice, by reason only of the fact that he paid money to the accused.

29. Clause 22 empowers a court to pardon a person who has committed an offence under Part II, if he gives full and true evidence of the matter. It is not uncommon, in cases where offences are committed by several persons, to call some of them as witnesses against the others. However, they may be deterred from giving full and true testimony by the fear of providing evidence against themselves on which they, in turn, could be prosecuted. Moreover, at common law a witness cannot be compelled to answer any question which might incriminate him. A pardon granted under this clause will by-pass this rule of evidence and afford some reassurance to the witness. No such pardon will, however, debar a prosecution for perjury if such a witness should commit perjury.

30. Clause 23 will protect the identity of informers, who have to be used frequently in corruption cases. The personal risks undertaken by them in giving information are sometimes consider- able in this kind of case. Since they perform a helpful function in giving information, it is necessary to confer as much protection as possible on them.

31. Clause 24 provides that the burden of establishing lawful authority or reasonable excuse will be upon the accused. It is probable that this provision is merely declaratory of the position at common law, since, if the subject-matter of a particular allegation is peculiarly within the knowledge of the accused, it lies upon him. to rebut the allegation. However, it is thought desirable to put the matter beyond argument. The clause will not relieve the prosecu- tion of establishing that the accused actually solicited, accepted, offered or gave a bribe, as the case may be.

32. Clause 25 deprives a person charged with an offence under Part II of the right to make an unsworn statement from the dock. An accused making a statement from the dock is not

E93